The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is funding scientists:
The Chan Zuckerberg Biohub has selected its first cohort of investigators. The nonprofit research institute in San Francisco, California, part of Facebook Co-Founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan's plan to cure, prevent, or manage all diseases, announced today that 47 faculty at three nearby research universities will get no-strings-attached awards to delve into risky new directions.
Biohub is the first concrete piece of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's foray into science, launched last September with a commitment of $3 billion over 10 years from Zuckerberg and Chan, a pediatrician. The institute brings together the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); UC Berkeley; and Stanford University to focus initially on two projects, a cell atlas and infectious diseases. The launch of Biohub's investigator program means each scientist and engineer chosen will receive an average of up to $300,000 per year for 5 years for life sciences research.
All papers produced are required to be freely published online as preprints. Published papers may also be required to be open access.
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Thursday February 09 2017, @11:27PM
From the summary:
That's definitely not a "no strings attached" funding. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a very good requirement. But "no strings attached" is something different.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @11:45PM
I think that clause is minor enough to fly under the "no strings attached" radar. I would imagine "strings" to be corporate kickbacks, IP ownership, limited scope of what could be researched, etc. A clause to freely publish results hardly seems like it qualifies.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Gaaark on Friday February 10 2017, @12:07AM
Yes, I'm wondering if I should be ecstatic about this?!?!? What are the strings in this no strings deal?
I mean 'come on'.
Come on!
This is suckersberg!!!!!!!
Or is it Paul McCartney????? I'm confused now. :(
"I shouldn't even BE here!"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @12:50AM
Can't please some cunts, can you?
It says "no strings" but requires that I can't attatch my own strings. Well that sounds like a string to me *indignant pose*.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 10 2017, @01:36AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEiW_-7ILfg [youtube.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday February 10 2017, @11:17AM
I think that clause is minor enough to fly under the "no strings attached" radar.
I disagree, for two reasons.
First: If you publicly state "no strings attached" and then in the next paragraph publicly state "but you have to jump through this hoop", then obviously you're attaching strings. Saying it's not so is (to coin a phrase) an alternative fact.
Second: in most research areas, where you publish counts. A lot. Now if there are no top venues that are open access venue, you're forcing the involved researchers to publish in lower-ranked conferences and journals than possible. Congratulations! Your "minor clause" string is affecting the career of any PhD student and PostDoc put on this project.
"Minor", my tush.
Strings are strings. The reason no-strings-attached sounds good is because that means there's no hidden surprises whose consequences it's hard to oversee.